Human behavior is driven by emotions experienced after contact with the external and external environment of a person. Scholars have studied emotions and discovered that certain brain areas are more active during experiences of feelings. However, there seems to be no consensus on the exact biochemical constitution or physiological mechanism of the senses: there is no formula for sadness yet. Such a notion implies that emotions and ensuing feelings are individual for everyone so that any theories about emotions are only overgeneralizations. Theorists debate on the question of cognition and emotions’ interrelationship. In my perspective, the view that cognition precedes the emotional reaction is unlikely to be true. People are passionate and irrational in most situations; phenomenon as irresistible impulse would not exist if reflections drove behavior. In brief, the study of emotions’ nature and work is yet not holistic and fully equipped to explain human life phenomena.
Nevertheless, some descriptive theses about the work of emotions are explicit and can be observed in everyday situations. For example, it is claimed that changes in a person’s emotional state generate various physiological reactions. Indeed, one can detect shivering after feeling fear or blushing of the cheeks (i.e., change in the body’s temperature) after a shameful experience. Furthermore, arousal is postulated to be the cause of emotions. Routine experiences of people who starved or lacked sleep for an extended period verify this statement. After missing a sleep session or portion of food, people become less emotional than usual and may even ignore various stimuli except for hunger and slumber want. Therefore, scientific evidence correlates with the experiences of people as to the emotional episodes.
Health psychology discussed in the unit includes yet another range of topics such as motivation and needs. These two aspects of human cognitive volition foundations are closely related to each other. In fact, approaches towards defining and deconstructing both are abundant and controversial. Among the most debated and criticized theories of motivation is the one concerning instincts. Aside from apparent objections to the idea, I suggest that the provided list of instincts is not informative of human nature. Namely, people obey cultural and social norms more often than their “genetically inherited patterns of behavior.” For example, self-sacrifice on behalf of the state or ideas cannot be explained in terms of instincts. Similar arguments could be said about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which seems to be simplified and generalized to a greater extent than should be. The esteem needs, for instance, may be more important for a person than anything else: one can consider patriotic captives refusing to intake food of the enemy. Hence, some theories of motivation and needs are probably outdated or not specific for explaining the range of actions performed by people.
Finally, different emotions, behavior, motivation, and needs characterize a person. Then, a question of defining personality arises, as well as distinguishing generalized types. The very wish for such a system seems to me a common human trait: an attempt to rationalize everything. However, each person has unique characteristics that could not be entwined into any methodology. The existence of numerous approaches to personality is especially evident of the inability to standardize humans. Yet, theoretical frameworks of psychological disorders are of greater importance and use since they allow to provide help for the mentally ill population. To conclude, the multiple lists of traits do not reflect the diversity of human beings, but they could serve a purpose when treating unstable ones.